Re: Discussing typographical standards (was: Tuplet notehead shared...)
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 01:10 +0100, Simon Albrecht wrote:
Am 24.03.2014 13:33, schrieb Richard Shann:
An example of this, typeset using LilyPond is posted here:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/278632
To do this I set tuplet timing around the entire bass part and used
doubled time signatures (one hidden IIRC)
Richard
The following is completely off-topic, but I’d like to share some
observations I often make and thoughts I have and ask for your
opinion:
Looking at this score confirms me in my opinion that LilyPond default
output alone is no guarantee for a good-looking result in accordance
with typographical good use.
This is a matter of degree: most people coming to LilyPond will have
experienced drawing-based gui programs which leave much more to your
skill as a music engraver.
This may be partly due to an older lilypond version used,
yes, I think that was 2.12. Nowadays Denemo is built with the latest
stable LilyPond release.
but there are some basic issues I see with this:
– For what I know of best practice in typography, it is normally
unnecessary to use slurs for indicating melismata. Beaming
(\autoBeamOff, melismata with []), placement of syllables and
hyphenation/extender lines make the lyrics assignment unambiguous and
easy to read in all but the most complex cases (that is, when the
rhythmic complexity requires that the beaming corresponds to beat
groups and legibility would suffer in the opposite case—which will
rarely occur before 1900).
Certainly I know that the Lily authors knew what they were doing, when
they recommended using slurs for this purpose. This is used in
excellent hand-engraved editions as well, I think especially later in
the 20th century. Nevertheless I vote for the supposedly older use, as
described before.
– The default Denemo output
hmm, I think you misunderstand Denemo here. It is a music *input*
program - I think in this case it is a question on garbage-in,
garbage-out. I was asked to generate that score for a concert, and hoped
for feedback from the consumers (I know *nothing* about vocal scores);
unfortunately, the consumers are so used to, and tolerant of, bad
computer music typesetting that they simply said it was lovely and
that was that.
reflects the now common, but faulty practice of writing syl- la- ble
instead of syl - la - ble (with the hyphens centered between
syllables). The corresponding Lilypond code would be { syl -- la --
ble }, see Learning Manual, Aligning lyrics to a melody.
So, you would type -- in Denemo to get that style, if you knew what you
were doing. As I say, I was too ignorant of vocal music to do that or to
devise a way that Denemo would hint to the user that they might want to
do it. But Denemo is just a LilyPond front end, you can (I hope) put
anything in the lyrics as needed.
– The beginning of the first recitative is a good example where
inserting a line break at half-measure would significantly improve the
visual impression by a more even horizontal spacing.
Denemo has the command to do this built in, I have been using it myself
recently to break a page at the second time (half-)bar.
I found that it was common in traditional hand-engraved scores to do
such mid-measure breaks (if measures aren’t rather short), and thus I
am often using \bar at half-measure. Sometimes I even use an extra
voice for something like \repeat unfold 35 { s2 \bar s2 } and thus
create more flexibility in line-breaking. The disadvantage is that
there is no possibility to differ in likeliness between mid-measure
and full-measure breaks, which would then be desirable.
– As always, the default margins are too small.
I have once or twice created Denemo defaults that emit the LilyPond to
alter the LilyPond defaults, but have then had occasion to regret it
later when LilyPond improves/changes. I don't think this is one of them
- though I place an enormous premium on lack of page turns for my
personal use.
This is already being discussed as issue 3808 and will hopefully be
changed soon. I once read a comprehensive article (in German) on this
topic from the German Tex user group’s magazine, and the author
pointed out that in medieval manuscripts and renaissance prints an
outstandingly pleasing appearance is achieved by page margins which
cover up half of the page’s space! This is luxury, of course, and
usually unaffordable, but I find it evident that having unusually
large margins (and simple ratios between the measurements of the page
and margins, and the top-margin smaller than the bottom-margin and so
on…) much improves the look of the page. It might necessitate to
decrease staff size, though, but anyway 16 pt are no way too small.
– In order to increase legibility and clarity it’s also much advisable
to use at least one StaffGroup, e.g.
\new StaffGroup {
\new Staff = fl {}
\new StaffGroup {
\new Staff = vl1 {}
\new Staff = vl2 {}
}
...
Discussing typographical standards (was: Tuplet notehead shared...)
Am 24.03.2014 13:33, schrieb Richard Shann:
An example of this, typeset using LilyPond is posted here:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/278632
To do this I set tuplet timing around the entire bass part and used
doubled time signatures (one hidden IIRC)
Richard
The following is completely off-topic, but I'd like to share some
observations I often make and thoughts I have and ask for your opinion:
Looking at this score confirms me in my opinion that LilyPond default
output alone is no guarantee for a good-looking result in accordance
with typographical good use. This may be partly due to an older lilypond
version used, but there are some basic issues I see with this:
-- For what I know of best practice in typography, it is normally
unnecessary to use slurs for indicating melismata. Beaming
(\autoBeamOff, melismata with []), placement of syllables and
hyphenation/extender lines make the lyrics assignment unambiguous and
easy to read in all but the most complex cases (that is, when the
rhythmic complexity requires that the beaming corresponds to beat groups
and legibility would suffer in the opposite case---which will rarely
occur before 1900).
Certainly I know that the Lily authors knew what they were doing, when
they recommended using slurs for this purpose. This is used in excellent
hand-engraved editions as well, I think especially later in the 20th
century. Nevertheless I vote for the supposedly older use, as described
before.
-- The default Denemo output reflects the now common, but faulty
practice of writing syl- la- ble instead of syl - la - ble (with the
hyphens centered between syllables). The corresponding Lilypond code
would be { syl -- la -- ble }, see Learning Manual, Aligning lyrics to a
melody
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/aligning-lyrics-to-a-melody.
-- The beginning of the first recitative is a good example where
inserting a line break at half-measure would significantly improve the
visual impression by a more even horizontal spacing. I found that it was
common in traditional hand-engraved scores to do such mid-measure breaks
(if measures aren't rather short), and thus I am often using \bar at
half-measure. Sometimes I even use an extra voice for something like
\repeat unfold 35 { s2 \bar s2 } and thus create more flexibility in
line-breaking. The disadvantage is that there is no possibility to
differ in likeliness between mid-measure and full-measure breaks, which
would then be desirable.
-- As always, the default margins are too small. This is already being
discussed as issue 3808
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3808 and will
hopefully be changed soon. I once read a comprehensive article
http://www.dante.de/tex/Dokumente/KohmSatzspiegel.pdf (in German) on
this topic from the German Tex user group's magazine, and the author
pointed out that in medieval manuscripts and renaissance prints an
outstandingly pleasing appearance is achieved by page margins which
cover up half of the page's space! This is luxury, of course, and
usually unaffordable, but I find it evident that having unusually
large margins (and simple ratios between the measurements of the page
and margins, and the top-margin smaller than the bottom-margin and so
on...) much improves the look of the page. It might necessitate to
decrease staff size, though, but anyway 16 pt are no way too small.
-- In order to increase legibility and clarity it's also much advisable
to use at least one StaffGroup, e.g.
\new StaffGroup {
\new Staff = fl {}
\new StaffGroup {
\new Staff = vl1 {}
\new Staff = vl2 {}
}
...
}
Using LilyPond unfortunately doesn't in itself guarantee flawless
typography (as Denemo advertises itself). You need to use it correctly
also, following the instructions in the manuals...
I hope I haven't been too moralist there, nor too extensive... sorry
if I have.
Best regards,
Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Discussing typographical standards (was: Tuplet notehead shared...)
Simon,
Pardon me if I have not read your comments correctly. As I read them they
are about the defects of Lilypond yet are based on a score written by
Denemo.
Lilypond is a computer program. As such it is a mathematical system.
According to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, any system is either
consistent or complete. The Lilypond system is consistent. It is not
complete, therefore some tweaking is necessary is certain circumstances.
Hand engraved music is not consistent. The engraver adjusts as necessary,
and the engraver is complete, i.e., able to address all situations.
In my limited work with Lilypond (less than two years and maybe 20 scores),
any incompleteness of Lilypond has been handily dealt with after
requesting help from the user's group.
Mark Stephen Mrotek
From: lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Simon Albrecht
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:11 PM
To: Richard Shann; lilypond user list
Subject: Discussing typographical standards (was: Tuplet notehead shared...)
Am 24.03.2014 13:33, schrieb Richard Shann:
An example of this, typeset using LilyPond is posted here:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/278632
To do this I set tuplet timing around the entire bass part and used
doubled time signatures (one hidden IIRC)
Richard
The following is completely off-topic, but I'd like to share some
observations I often make and thoughts I have and ask for your opinion:
Looking at this score confirms me in my opinion that LilyPond default output
alone is no guarantee for a good-looking result in accordance with
typographical good use. This may be partly due to an older lilypond version
used, but there are some basic issues I see with this:
- For what I know of best practice in typography, it is normally unnecessary
to use slurs for indicating melismata. Beaming (\autoBeamOff, melismata with
[]), placement of syllables and hyphenation/extender lines make the lyrics
assignment unambiguous and easy to read in all but the most complex cases
(that is, when the rhythmic complexity requires that the beaming corresponds
to beat groups and legibility would suffer in the opposite case-which will
rarely occur before 1900).
Certainly I know that the Lily authors knew what they were doing, when they
recommended using slurs for this purpose. This is used in excellent
hand-engraved editions as well, I think especially later in the 20th
century. Nevertheless I vote for the supposedly older use, as described
before.
- The default Denemo output reflects the now common, but faulty practice of
writing syl- la- ble instead of syl - la - ble (with the hyphens centered
between syllables). The corresponding Lilypond code would be { syl -- la --
ble }, see Learning Manual, Aligning lyrics to a melody
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/aligning-lyrics-to-a-m
elody .
- The beginning of the first recitative is a good example where inserting a
line break at half-measure would significantly improve the visual impression
by a more even horizontal spacing. I found that it was common in traditional
hand-engraved scores to do such mid-measure breaks (if measures aren't
rather short), and thus I am often using \bar at half-measure. Sometimes
I even use an extra voice for something like \repeat unfold 35 { s2 \bar
s2 } and thus create more flexibility in line-breaking. The disadvantage is
that there is no possibility to differ in likeliness between mid-measure and
full-measure breaks, which would then be desirable.
- As always, the default margins are too small. This is already being
discussed as issue 3808
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3808 and will
hopefully be changed soon. I once read a comprehensive article
http://www.dante.de/tex/Dokumente/KohmSatzspiegel.pdf (in German) on this
topic from the German Tex user group's magazine, and the author pointed out
that in medieval manuscripts and renaissance prints an outstandingly
pleasing appearance is achieved by page margins which cover up half of the
page's space! This is luxury, of course, and usually unaffordable, but I
find it evident that having unusually large margins (and simple ratios
between the measurements of the page and margins, and the top-margin smaller
than the bottom-margin and so on.) much improves the look of the page. It
might necessitate to decrease staff size, though, but anyway 16 pt are no
way too small.
- In order to increase legibility and clarity it's also much advisable to
use at least one StaffGroup, e.g.
\new StaffGroup {
\new Staff = fl {}
\new StaffGroup {
\new Staff = vl1 {}
\new Staff = vl2 {}
}
...
}
Using LilyPond unfortunately doesn't in itself guarantee flawless
typography (as Denemo advertises itself). You need to use it correctly also,
following the instructions in the manuals.
I hope I haven't been too moralist there, nor too extensive. sorry if I
have
